Time for a new open thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time for a new open thread.
Time for a new open thread.
Time for a new open thread.
Time for a new open thread.
Advertisment
Time for a new open thread.
17 March 1959 at the North Pole.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not…
Pictures are worth a 1000 words. It was winter too!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeepers, Freezer, even John Daly had to admit [that picture was mislabelled](http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/):
>The article was meant to indicate that the North Pole had been ice free, even in spring, during the mid-20th century. However, we are not disputing this point here - rather, we examine whether the photograph was indeed of the USS Skate at the North Pole on the 17th March 1959 - i.e. whether the data had been honestly and correctly quoted.
>There are two easily-accessible references, which describe the surfacing of the USS Skate at the North Pole on the 17th March 1959 (the first submarine to do so):
>* Calvert, J.F., 1959. Up through the ice of the North Pole, The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. CXVI, No. 1, July 1959, pp. 1-41.
>* Calvert, J., 1996. Surface at The Pole, Bluejacket Books (originally printed by McGraw-Hill, 1960).
>and which say:
>* That the sun was still below the horizon and it was quite dark (it did not appear until 19 March):
>>The sun was still just below the horizon and a very heavy overcast made for late twilight darkness
>* That the weather was terrible:
>>* the wind ..... was roaring around us at about 30 knots, blowing the snow until one could see no more than a quarter of a mile
>>* The swirling snow loomed around the red torches
>>* in the 26-below-zero cold..... The wind blew snow into our noses and mouths, and it was difficult to talk or even breathe
>>* The wind and bitter cold made it physically difficult to hold and read the prayer book
>>* the gale was increasing and the temperature dropping
>>* Both sides of the lead were piled with the heaviest and ruggedest hummocks I had yet seen in the Arctic. It was a wild and forbidding scene
>Do these descriptions match the picture above? Of course not. After a long argument, John Daly was eventually persuaded to remove the picture from his web site. It turned out that he had absolutely no evidence to prove that the picture was of the Skate at the North Pole on the 17th March 1959 - it wasn't - it was just a convenient photo, chosen to 'prove' the point he was trying to make. His 'data' was just plain wrong.
lol
good work I was going to post the same link.
All I will say is the tide is turning for the better on this whole ridiculous issue
Tim
Do you think you would ever change your stance on AGW?
>Pictures are worth a 1000 words. It was winter too!!!!!!!!!!!
Erm. Pictures also create a lot of confusion if misused or wrongly analysed.
I have a photo of my grandfather who was a yacht skipper. The new owner of the yacht is convinced that one of the other crew is my father. Just because he is convinced it is, doesn't make him correct.
I remember as a teenager reading Van Danikens book about space men building pyramids and the photos in the book proved it. It taught me to be cautious of amateurs writing trash theories.
Photos mean as little or as much as the analysis applied to them.
So is a picture worth a 1000 words? Well a thousand words can all be wrong. Which means that a picture can be as worthless as any string of words.
Good Lord, bearers of the sacred relics of St John of Daly pass us, chanting brightly....
Yay! Open thread!
Apparently the swine flu is proof positive that we should impeach Obama and prepare for the End Times.
More right-wing solutions to the swine flu, as spotted by yours truly.
I think Watt should do an expose on Alistair Maclean - obviously 'Ice Station Zebra' was part of the GW Conspiracy!
CO2 lol:
That's a great response to being shown how gullible you are. Keep it up. We can do with the comedy.
Open thread = douchebag bait?
"Hard left character assainations"
Gotta love it when right wing NJs have little hissy fits.
>Do you think you would ever change your stance on AGW?
That would assume that there are many correct answers to the issues and that we can choose which one we want to support and the outcome will depend on the number of votes.
That implies that if we took a vote on say Newtons laws today and mounted a campaign discrediting them, then Newtonian science/maths could be removed from society and everyone would be happy.
So basically applying the logic further, by taking denialists ideas of science, we would all be living in caves.
Paul:
> the outcome will depend on the number of votes.
No, that's not how it works. How it works is, the outcome will depend on the number of votes from Rush Limbaugh.
The date on the picture is as Tim suggests wrong.( I may disagree with you Tim on many points but I am not afraid to aknowledge when you are correct,the difference between a warmist and a realist) The Skate ssn 578 was at the pole on 07/30/1958.( look at WUWT and the news reel shots). The story about the weather probably relates to the 1959 date not the 1958 date.
Regardless of the date on the photo what is important is that there are many different pictures of US subs at the pole at various points in time with little or no sea ice present.
My point exactly Kent. The arctic melting is not unique to the 2000's.
Point taken on the date guys, but I think you know what I was trying to say.
Freezer, you can't "make a point" using fake data, well not one of any worth. Do you have any evidence that supports your "point"?
Nathan, the evidence is everywhere but evidence is not what would change a warmists mind. The Arctic sea ice crashes and bashes creating open water all the time. Sea ice acts like an insulator, this is a well known fact.
You guys talk about melting of Arctic sea ice but what you tend to ignore is how much gets moved into the North Atlantic every year. How much sea ice gets compressed every year and gets listed as "melted".
Nathan - my point is that there are cases that have been recorded that the sea has been open at the North Pole. According to you deluded warmers and the media, it is as if this has not happened before and we are now experiencing unique Arctic ice melt. It has happened before, before, before.........
Freezer and Kent
Where is your skepticism? Seems to be lacking... These photographs could be from anywhere.
The Newsreel has the following caption underneath it:
"This 1958 Universal newsreel uses Dept. of Defense video to report on the USS Skate, a nuclear submarine that is the first sub to surface through the arctic winter ice, 25 feet thick, at the North Pole."
So, yes the ice was 25 feet thick... About 7m.
Seriously Kent, if this is your evidence you are a moron.
Here we go again, because we are non beleivers we are 'morons'. Name calling is the weapon of the warmers.
I can assure you the pictures were not taken in the Sahara Desert.
I don't think anyone is denying (that d word again) these pictures were not taken at 90 deg North.
"deluded warmers "
Name calling anyone?!?!? Making up sh*t is the wapon of the denalists.
weapon*
Freezer, you 'evidence' that there was no ice at the north pole in 1958 actually states it was 25 feet thick. If you think that means it is free of ice, then yes I think you deserve to be called a moron.
In 1959 we have the reports of ice as outlined by Tim above.
What is lacking in you photographic study is skepticism.
If you look at the ones that show water, you may see that this is just water on top of ice. It is very common to get puddles (or even large lakes) at the north pole in Summer. These bodies of fresh water lie on top of very thick ice. I believe this is what you are seeing in the pictures.
>Kent: Nathan, the evidence is everywhere but evidence is not what would change a warmists mind.
You are assuming that science is based on convincing the public one thing or another.
What you describe is a political process not a scientific one.
Hence i suggest you are interested in the politics.
If you were truely interested in the science, you wouldn't be concerned about a 'warmists' mind.
The 'free of ice' photo doesn't really add any information of value.
The location of the submarine can only be proven based on its surroundings in the photo. Given that it is surrounded by mist, it offers very little visual evidence other than to be used by someone that believes it makes a specific point.
As I said it does not matter what the evidence is it can't change the mind of a warmist. The text does not say that the whole area was covered with 25 feet of Ice nor does it say that the whole of the pole was ice free.; Current data from space showes that the Arctic ice sheet is constantly cracking and exposing the sea to the air. The subs, using sonar could pick out these ice free areas and surface.
Paul # 26 The assumption is yours. Science is Science and Politics is Politics. The two are completely different animals.
As a scientist of course I would be interested in a warmist's mind. Mass hysteria, delusional behavior, phobias, irrational thought, are all aspects of the human mind that interest the scientific mind.
Just as I am interested in how people are fooled by con artists I am interested in why they refuse to believe they are being tricked out of their money, even going so far as to say that the con artist was such a nice person. Even after looking at their bank balance they refuse to accept reality. Admitting you were wrong, admitting you have been fooled, is very hard to do. It is part of human nature and as a scientist I find it very interesting.
As any good scientist knows, in the search for new knowledge it is imperative that you be able to suspend your beliefs. If you can't then you will never gain a better understanding of reality and you will be stuck in the past with outdated knowledge.
> As I said it does not matter what the evidence is
You know, when the quality of your 'skeptic' 'evidence' tends to be worse than even that in The X-Files: I Want To Believe... it should be pretty clear why nobody cares for your supposed 'skepticism'.
The X-Files: Believe Again... The X-Files: I Want To Believe...
Freezer:
I won't deny you if you want to say these pictures were not taken at 90 deg North.
be--Iji;
at least we realists have evidence. Warmists only have faulty assumptions. This is why in any debate between the two points of view the warmists always loose. You have no evidence, only speculative assummptions and jumps in logic that make no sense at all. Warming causes cooling is not logical unless we are talking about a negative feedback. For warmists, everything is faked unless it supports your position, then of course faking something is in the realm of the ends justify the means.
Faking that the loss of Arctic sea ice in 2007 was because of CO2 increase when it was caused by the wind, is a case in point. The fact that it took NASA 2 years to correct the published error speaks volumns regarding the lack of integrity of that organization.
In fact, I won't deny anyone if they want to say these pictures were not taken at 90 deg North. Freezer presumably won't either, since he doesn't think anyone is.
> > You know, when the quality of your 'skeptic' 'evidence' tends to be worse than even that in The X-Files: I Want To Believe...
> be--Iji; at least we realists [= inactivists] have evidence.
In kent's mind, 'evidence' that sucks still counts as evidence.
The X-Files: Believe Again... I Want To Believe...
I don't get it. Do those photos prove that there was no ice over the north pole, little ice, or cracks in thick ice? If it's the last one, which seems the most likely, I don't understand how it could possibly be a point in the favour of the "realists". (Reality is what you make it?)
"40 years ago, the ice was 25 feet thick and big cracks would allow subs to surface! So there!" -Sideshow kent
Right. In these photos, the north pole is not "free of ice", but rather, covered with ice that currents slam together and moves apart in pieces, forming leads - sometimes quite large - that subs can surface in even if the average ice thickness is 25 feet (or whatever depending on year and season).
This is irrelevant to arguments made that warming is leading to increasingly large stretches of the arctic ice cap being ICE FREE during summer. ICE FREE. Not "COVERED WITH ICE WHICH HAS CRACKS AND HOLES IN IT".
The whole WUWT argument parroted by others here is just stupid. An apple is not an orange, even if you paint it orange and lie about it.
One of the 'Spiked' associates has thought it worthwhile to make a film about the malarial bednet swindle - and is bemoans the fact that the miracle chemical DDT was 'banned in 1972'...
Groan...
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6612/
That's the Polynya in that picture.
http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212
"... there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. ..."
Hat tip to Washington Monthly, their hat tip to (gag) Huffington.
Wait a minute. Could Huffington be Colbert in reverse?
That would explain a lot.
Freezer:
OK, since Freezer thinks no-one will deny me, I'll say it:
These pictures were not taken at 90 deg North.
The Australian is at it again:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25400914-7583,00.html
Where were the pictures taken Chris? 89.98 deg C maybe? Of course if it was 2009 it was taken the warmers would be onto this story in a flash. The world is doomed etc, tax the rich immediately, blah, blah, blah.
Lets face it, warmers get really aggressive when there is a story that is not in their bible, it is the work of heretics etc.
While CO2 still increases GisTemp still shows cooling over the past 7 years.
(continued from another thread...)
Gaz, you say:
Libertarianism means liberty that is not taken at the expense of others. When offenses occur, then one relies on the enforcement agency with jurisdiction, be that a tribal chief, private police/court/mediation system, or the government police and courts. So yes, the government may have a role but not necessarily.
"So yes, the government may have a role but not necessarily."
Pinko.
'enforcement agency'
Pfft, you really have no idea how the real world works, eh?
Yesterday was colder than today where I live (in the southern hemisphere).
Does this mean that midwinter has passed and that summer is acomin'?
Paul said
From above: Libertarianism means liberty that is not taken at the expense of others.
If there's one bucket of water that 100 people have to share, then is someone being "forced" to have only one sip, like the others? No. It is simply respect for others equal liberty to the (assumed community) water. Completely in line with libertarianism.
Freezer writes:
The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. 7 years means nothing. If you look over the temperature record of the last 129 years (available from NASA GISS), you'll see that temperature jogs up and down on a 5-10 year time scale all the time. Doesn't mean anything because with a short sample the result isn't statistically significant. The trend is still up.
Maybe bc we have gone out of a little Ice Age Barton? A recent 7 yr blip was not predicted by the models was it? Syntax error, syntax error.
30 years is an arbitary number antway. the last 7 years are more significant than the 8-14 year period.
Crap NaGS, that sounds like communism to me.
Hmmm... Perhaps you would care to show us how many models 'predict [sic] blips' of a particular nature, especially more than a few years from the time of 'prediction'.
>If there's one bucket of water that 100 people have to share, then is someone being "forced" to have only one sip, like the others? No. It is simply respect for others equal liberty to the (assumed community) water. Completely in line with libertarianism.
Geez, you are naive or live in a monastery.
Some people are going to want more than others. So your fantasy scenario is either going to result in arguements, or you introduce rules that the greedier people will see as a rule that forces them to have less than they want!
What planet do you live on?
>Libertarianism means liberty that is not taken at the expense of others. When offenses occur, then one relies on the enforcement agency with jurisdiction, be that a tribal chief, private police/court/mediation system, or the government police and courts. So yes, the government may have a role but not necessarily.
What defines an offense?
Who defines jurisdiction?
What about the impacts of peoples individual decisions on the wider populations now and more importantly on future generations?
What about the liberties of future generations that are changed by choices made today?
Your views are extremely simplistic and out of date.
You are not defining anything new that takes into account issues over long periods of time or over greater distances.
> A recent 7 yr blip was not predicted by the models was it?
The climate models also didn't predict Edison Chen having sex with Cecilia Cheung, therefore by inactivist 'logic', The Models Are Wrong.
Freezer:
I don't think there'd be too much ice around at 89.98 deg C.
But in case you meant 89.98 deg North then you were just making a facile assertion as in these pictures were not taken at exactly 90 degrees North.
Amazing. He thinks statistical significance increases with less information. Looks like another person with an Alice-in-Wonderland view of the world.
Nah Chris you warmers are in disney land, at the beach with towels when you need thermals instead. All all the pictures at WUWT fakes, taken with GW in mind to confuse the warmers in years to come.
Bi - I bet the only model you have had was a toy train.
Wow, Freezer just did an impressive job proving thousands of scientists wrong. I'm impressed!
Freezer:
When he loses the argument the only thing left is a rhetorical slur.
Freezer:
"A recent 7 yr blip was not predicted by the models was it?"
I continue to be astounded at how ignorant so many of the denialists are of teh basics of the field they profess to know enough about to know it is wrong.
Freezer, individual model runs do have the kind of year-to-year variability that produces a 'blip,' as you call it. Those blip are weather. Multiple model runs over the same years will produce different patterns of weather - the individual warmer and colder years will be in different years.
But climate modelers aren't all that interested in variation in individual years - they are interested in trends, in climate. So, to smooth the weather and see climate trends, they make multiple runs of the model. They average the output so that the individual year to year variation averages out, and the underlying trend is revealed.
The ensemble has all the 'blips' intentionally smoothed out. That means that real-world 'blips' that aren't in the ensemble outputs, are simply irrelevant to whether the real world climate matches the model ensemble outputs. What would be relevant would be a continued statistically significant departure over climate time periods, from the central tendency of the model ensemble - and there is simply no evidence of such a thing happening at this time.
And people who know what they are talking about, know this.
Does "wanting" entitle another person to your property?
... or negotiations, or trade, ....
I thought that greed was a problem in the world. Libertarianism provides a solution. Isn't it worth a look?
> I thought that greed was a problem in the world. Libertarianism provides a solution.
Magical ponies?
Much of that is covered here:
The philosophy of liberty
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
nanny_govt_sucks:
With all the noise from climate 'skeptics' about giving space to opposing views, it's strange that Bullshit Libertarians like to claim to have the One True "Philosophy of Liberty".
Or maybe it's not so strange. After all, it's Bullshit Libertarianism.
Freezer writes:
What is the physical mechanism behind "go[ing] out of a little Ice Age?" Are you under the impression that the Earth's climate is like a spring in simple harmonic motion? It isn't.
No. That's not what they're written to do.
Are you talking about global climate models? A syntax error is when a line of code doesn't compile because the programmer got the details of the language wrong. A program with syntax errors won't run at all.
No, it's derived from statistical analysis of climate behavior. In general it takes about 30 years of annual data for trends to show through the noise.
Do you understand what the word "significant" means? It's not a subjective judgment; it's a statistical term and it can be measured. Your statement above is just meaningless.
Actually, I think it's very meaningful. It means we can safely ignore someone who parades his woeful ignorance as being superior to actual understanding. A little light mockery then a clicking of the killfile. (Unless you can stomach the absurd comedy of someone who can say with a sneer that 30 years is arbitrary and 7 years more significant than 8-14.)
The Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change, coming to you in 2 June this year.
All this expectation of CO2 warming when there has been proof of CO2 being a strong climate driver in the last 480k years.
Don't you just hate when you ment to preview and posted instead? Oh well.
Let me try again:
How come there is so much expectation of CO2 warming when there has never been any proof of CO2 domainated warming in the last 480K years. I use that because that is about as far back as high resolution temporal records go.
Vernon,
Because for the last 480ky, CO2 has been a slow natural feedback as opposed to its sudden emergence as an artificial forcing over the last 250 years.
Let me see if I understand you. In the past 480ky CO2 has not been responsible for warming or even been a major driver, yet it is major driver now?
I am not sure I see how that is possible. The ice core record, the only high resolution temporal record of CO2 and temperature shows that CO2 never caused warming. Further, CO2 was not a strong driver since the temperature peaked before CO2. This also indicates that there is no lag between CO2 rise and temperature since if there was, temperature would peak after CO2 peaked, which it does not.
So how is CO2 going to do much warming now?
Vernon,
The major forcing in the last million years or so has been the Milankovich cycles. Milankovich cycles by themselves are insufficient to explain interglacial temperature differences. Such requires feedbacks including that of the well known and experimentally substantiated radiative characteristics of CO2.
Then if CO2 was the driver beyond MC, then why does the temperature peak before CO2 peaks. CO2 adds some warming but the historical record shows that it is not much. Either CO2 is a strong driver and the historical record is wrong or CO2 is a weak driver.
Why would temperatures peak before the CO2 peaks if CO2 was driving the temperature after MC got the warming started? If there was any lag in warming due to rising CO2, then why is the temperature not peaking after CO2 peaks?
The historical record shows clearly that CO2 was not the driver that caused warming. So either MC has more impact than you believe or there are other drivers that are not CO2 which cause the warming.
I do not have to come up with another driver, but if you want CO2 to be the major driver, then you have to show why it was not strong historically and it is now.
Vernon:
"Let me see if I understand you. In the past 480ky CO2 has not been responsible for warming or even been a major driver, yet it is major driver now?
I am not sure I see how that is possible. "
Because [CO2] off the charts higher than it ever was in that record.
MC as a driver is amplified by H2O feedback (fast) and CO2 feedback (slow) and probably by methane feedback (intermediate), and also by complex biological feedbacks. The feedback gain is relatively low - the temperatures and H2O-CO2 levels converge on new higher levels, with 'weather' variation around it. comparing the temporal order of the peaks is useless - "weather" or short term variation is goingto move those, and other feedback mechanisms play a part. IT is the new equilibrium state that matters, and CO2 contributes to that.
We are now dumping CO2 into the atmosphere to levels way, way (WAY!!!) above any ever seen in the data for close to a million years, and in all probability, for tens of millions of years. This CO2 is a driver - it is going to be amplified in small part by slow CO2 feedback, and in large part by fast H2O feedback. It is a driver now, because it is being artificially added to the atmosphere, not a slow feedback following temperature changes.
Vernon:
Because CO2 is not the only thing that affects temperature and the effect of the CO2 rise after the temperature peak is quite small. e.g. at the peak of the Eemian, the CO2 level was 270 ppm and the following peak level of CO2 was 286 ppm. This is enough to raise temperature by 0.25 deg C which is easily outweighed by other effects.
I don't think I said it was the "One True", and I'm sure you'll find libertarians are open to discussion on this topic.
I read your link from the other thread on "bullshit libertarianism". It appears you've discovered that some people claim to be libertarian while holding non-libertarian views. Yes, it's true. Bill Maher, Glen Beck are examples. Interesting that this reveals you must know something about libertarianism if you can identify those that hold non-libertarian views. Anyway, have I expressed a non-libertarian position in your opinion? What was it concerning?
nanny_govt_sucks:
> I don't think I said it was the "One True", and I'm sure you'll find libertarians are open to discussion on this topic.
Then why call it the "philosophy of liberty"?
> It appears you've discovered that some people claim to be libertarian while holding non-libertarian views.
Including, you know, yourself. Let me know once you've sorted out the cognitive dissonance of having to support free speech and cheer on Jim Salinger's firing from the NZ government at the same time.
Vernon writes:
The above statement is false. Over the ice ages CO2 has not INITIATED warming. It has certainly CAUSED warming. The Milankovic cycles do not generate enough temperature change to account for the values observed. You need CO2 as an amplifier.
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, Vernon.
I don't cheer or weep over Salinger's employment situation. It doesn't matter to me. He broke a rule, yes a particularly onerous one, and was fired. He wasn't thrown in jail. His liberty was not taken away from him. He was just fired. That's it. In a free-society, an employer can make a rule limiting free speech. For instance, you can't say the F word behind the counter at McDonalds. Well, you can, but you run the risk of termination. No one's liberty is at stake. With the state it's different because the state SHOULD support the freedom of speech, but we all know in reality it doesn't. So we run up against a case where it doesn't, even though, still no one's liberty is at stake. Tough. You want a big nanny-government, you get big nanny-government civil liberty violations. The solution is not to whine, but to realize what you got yourself into when you went to work for the nanny-government with its onerous rules. Take a little personal responsibility for your situation. Now maybe Salinger can go out and get a decent job that doesn't make him want to shower each day when he comes home.
nanny_govt_sucks:
> With the state it's different because the state SHOULD support the freedom of speech, but we all know in reality it doesn't. So we run up against a case where it doesn't, even though, still no one's liberty is at stake. Tough.
So that's what the "philosophy of liberty" is about. If The State™ doesn't support free speech, then it's still OK, because "no one's liberty is at stake".
Note also that nanny_govt_sucks is quick to clarify that he doesn't claim this to be the One True "Philosophy of Liberty", even though he does say it is the "philosophy of liberty".
I didn't say it was OK. I believe the state should be restrained to the point of near peaceful anarchy. Keep a court system and national defense. that's about it. Did you ever think that we got into this free speech issue because the nanny-government has extended itself into areas where (I believe, as do other libertarians) it doesn't belong? Should the government be involved in science? I think not. Only one result can occur: The politicization of science. So I laugh when I see the proponents of nanny-government now complaining that nanny-government is out of control. What did you expect?
nanny_govt_sucks:
> > So that's what the "philosophy of liberty" is about. If The State⢠doesn't support free speech, then it's still OK, because "no one's liberty is at stake".
> I didn't say it was OK.
So it's not OK, but "no one's liberty is at stake", so it's... still OK.
The "philosophy of liberty", my friends.
I didn't say it was OK. Stop putting words into my mouth.
No one's liberty is at stake so it's not a freedom of speech issue.
Still, government should support freedom of speech for all, but we all know that getting politicians and bureaucrats to allow freedom for people is complete folly. It's a nanny-government and you get what you get when you support nanny-government.
Washington said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.". So the fire got out of control and your buddy Salinger got burned. Maybe the fire should have been kept under control, then we wouldn't have this issue to argue over.
Can't wait for your next engaging post BI-IJI. I'm sure it will be "so it's oK but not OK". Spare us.
Correction: Still, government should support freedom of speech for all (including its employees) ...
I believe the state should be restrained to the point of near peaceful anarchy. Keep a court system and national defense.
this sounds like a wonderful idea. we will do a test run with nanny.
from this day on, he will not be allowed to use a public road, but will negotiate passage rights and road building with his neighbors.
he will be excluded from all public services like police, firefighters and ambulances.
we will exclude him from all benefits of public funded science, up to the moment that he has payed a sum that would have allowed him to fund similar research privately. (should keep him from the internet for a couple of years. one troll less.)
I am sorry if I worded my answer wrong, yes CO2 is a GHG but based on the historical record, not a strong one.
Barton Paul Levenson say that CO2 amplifies the MC warming. But if CO2 was amplifing the warming then would the temperature not peak when CO2 peaks? If the warming from the MC is being amplified by the CO2 then would not the MC/CO2 peak be the warming peak? But it is not.
Chris O'Neill say CO2 rise after the temperature peak is quite small. The temperature rise started 19ky and the CO2 rise did not happen till 2000 years later. The temperature peaked before the CO2 peaks which would indicate that temperature dirves CO2, not CO2 drives temperature.
All historical records show that temperature drives CO2 not CO2 driving temperature. Further, the historical record indicates that CO2 is a weak temperature driver. It is not that CO2 increase will cause no warming, just that the climate shows that CO2 will cause little warming.
Vernon:
You missed the point that because the forcing effect of CO2 rise after the temperature peak is so small that it can easily be countered by other forcings. A lot can happen climatically in 2000 years believe it or not, not just a change in CO2 level.
They don't show that CO2 cannot influence temperature. If the temperature is changing for other reasons anyway, it's not simple to separate out the effect of CO2.
So you've calculated how much this "little warming" is, have you? It'll be great to see your figures so we will know what "little" actually means.
Up to date Energy and Environment publications!
http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Climate_Change.htm
This idiot seems to think that there is a caustative link between norht pole magentic pole latitude and longitude, and that it is linked to warming...
Up to date Energy and Environment publications!
http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Climate_Change.htm
This idiot seems to think that there is a caustative link between norht pole magentic pole latitude and longitude, and that it is linked to warming...
Chris,
Your making my point, that CO2 and feedback from CO2 warming has historically not been strong.
No, that is my point. As I said, I am not saying that CO2 causes no warming just not much and this includes it's feedbacks. If CO2 plus feedbacks were as strong as currently been suggested then the historical record would show that temperature peaks when CO2 peaks. Since it does not, than CO2 is weak, i.e., not as strong as suggested.
I happen to agree, but it does not change the first point, namely that CO2 is not a strong climate driver. Now, about your statement. Are you sure that you mean this? If you do then please explain how we know how much warming we are having now is CO2 and how much is due to other drivers? We know that the earth has warmed since the end of the LIA. How much of the warming is due to CO2 and to what ever caused the warming after the LIA?
The whole worry about CO2 is the feedbacks. If they were not that strong in the past, why are the that strong now? If we cannot seperate warming due to CO2 in the past, how are we doing it now?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
. How much of the warming is due to CO2
why not read that [IPCC](http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/IPCC_Graphic_SPM-4_W…) report? once?
Global temperature changes during the 20th century. The blue line depictures only changes due to natural forcings triggered by solar activity and volcanoes. The red lines is made up of changes induced by natural and anthropogenic sources (Graphic: IPCC)
Vernon writes:
What is "what ever caused the warming after the LIA?" Where is the energy coming from?
Who says they weren't strong in the past? You, apparently. Scientists who have actually studied the matter says you can't get the observed temperature swings of the ice ages without CO2. Please pinpoint where and why they are wrong.
Have you heard of "regression analysis?" For a simple example, see:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html
Vernon:
Glad you agree that that the warming force caused by the CO2 rise after the temperature peak is not strong. This is of course the warming force based on a climate sensitivity of 3 deg C/CO2 doubling as I used in #72 above. Since we now have no disagreement that climate sensitivity is 3 deg C/CO2 doubling we can move on.
This question has been answered many times. Don't be a troll.
Sure, will you also refund my taxes, and any Opportunity Cost benefits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) that were lost in the funding of all those government work projects? Will you also bring back my share of the US troops from the 135 or so countries around the world where they are stationed and bring back to life those that have been killed by those soldiers in US government wars of aggression? Will you release my share of peaceful drug users from prison where they've been jailed in a failed war on (some) drugs? etc... etc...
10 Students Raped And Murdered in Georgia by Masked Terrorizing CriminalsGeorgia Student Saves Lives With His Gun
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026645.html
Chris,
No I do not agree with that.
Everything I read says that MC are not strong enough to be responsible for all the warming coming out of the glaciation periods. However, Toggweiler (2007) CO2 was responsible for less than 30 percent of Antarctic warming during the glacial terminations.
Further, Hunt (2006) shows
If MC is not responsible for much of the warming per the various studies, and CO2 does not explain the LIA or MWP, then what was the climate driver that caused most of the warming coming out of the last glaciation. What was the climate driver that caused the MWP & RWP warming or the LIA cooling.
That driver has not been identified yet. That driver was responsible for most the historical warming. That driver is not addressed in the models.
Please, point me to a study that explains what that driver is and how it is addressed in the current models.
This one's been making the rounds for months now (the notion, not the paper).
Bizarre as bizarre gets.
Vernon's been repeating the same questions and ignoring answers for years.
Don't waste your time, guys.
Oh well played nanny
"One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery."
So the only thing that kept the girl from dying was dumb luck.
Now imagine the scenario if was England and nobody had had a gun.
Nobody except the criminal, I guess you mean. What I imagine is 5 male students killed, 5 coeds raped and killed.
It's too bad about the girl caught in the crossfire. I hope she makes a full recovery. But it could have been much worse if the criminals had their way.
dhogaza,
why not just admit you do not know that answer? Put downs are easy, answers are not.
Sure, will you also refund my taxes, and any opportunity cost benefits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) that were lost in the funding of all those government work projects?
well, i d surely pay you back, what ever is left, after you payed everything that you used already (with "opportunity" costs).
What I imagine is 5 male students killed, 5 coeds raped and killed.
happens every day. thank god those weapons are around to stop those mass murderers...
Vernon
Solar insolation + volcanic aerosols.
LB,
Want to point to any studies that show that volcanic aerosols caused the LIA or any studies that show that changes in solar irradiance caused the MWP or LIA.
There are no studies that support your position, want to try again.
Consider land use changes
LB,
Once again, your guessing which is meaningless. Point to a study that supports your position.
No studies, Vernon?
README
README
LB,
Fine you pointed to two books which I do not intend to buy. Now, you want to point out where these books invalidate the current studies that I quoted? From what I read from the excerpts, they suspect volcanism but there is not enough evidence, they suspect indo-pacific ocean changes, but the evidence is not conclusive, they suspect solar irradiation changes, but the only evidence is that there was less solar activity. Was there something else I was suppose to get out of this, other then there is not enough evidence to conclude what caused the MWP or the LIA?
Please point out where the studies I presented were wrong.
Vernon:
I wish you could make up your mind.
That's right, two-thirds of a doubling only produces 2 deg C of warming.
Nice strawman switch there.
MC, CO2 and reduced albedo from reduced ice area. Pretty simple really, at least for people who don't have a political ideology that prevents them from understanding.
---Please point out where the studies I presented were wrong.
Posted by: Vernon | May 7, 2009 11:52 AM
They aren't wrong. You are misinterpreting them.
More studies.
Read the studies and what I did not see addressed is that prior to the MC effect in the NH the Southern Hemisphere had warming that lead to a 2C increase in deep Pacific Ocean. The MC effect would decrease the slightly decrease the solar energy in the SH while MC was increasing the, once again slightly, in the NH. Have not found a study that explains why warming started.
Most of the studies you referenced used trees to as the main proxy for temperature, yet none address the divergence issue. The IPCC 4th report identified that the dendrology proxies do not reflect the late 20th century warming. If the trees do not show the current warming, how do we expect them to show past warming at this level or higher?
LIA is explained by Volcanic activity but the studies listed, if read show that there are no complete records. Solar irradiation was determined to have decrease using solar activity as the proxy. Well, we can see now that solar irradiation has not decreased enough to have an impact yet solar activity is down and global temperatures have stopped increasing.
I go back to my original point which is that global temperature does not appear to be driven by CO2.
If divergence had not been addressed in the literature you would not have heard of it.
What you've heard is mostly false.
Vernon,
Why would you think that having 150 years of data against which to calibrate CO2 fertilization in tree-rings doesn't give us even more confidence in older dendro-chronologies?
Vernon,
If you want to learn about the last time atmospheric carbon was a significant natural climate driver forcing, I suggest you look at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum.
LB, The IPCC acknowledges that tree-ring proxies do not reflect the current warming. The tree-rings indicate cooling while the instrumented record indicates warming. Hence, the divergence issue. There is no known study that I can find or that the IPCC referenced that explains this issue. If tree-rings do not reflect the current warming, why would tree-rings reflect warming equal to or greater than current levels in the past? Until that issue is understood, relying on tree-rings as a proxy for temperature comes with a significant risk to misidentify higher temperatures.
Try harder.
The PETM had very high temperatures and high CO2 but I have found no studies that have a conclusive answer for what caused the warming. There are no proxies with enough temporal resolution to see which came first.
Then there is the other side of the story Fedorov et al (2206) showed that 5 to 3 million years ago, globally averaged temperatures were substantially higher than they are today, even though the external factors that determine climate were essentially the same. That is the CO2 level is the same as it is today. CO2 does not explain that warming.
There is a big difference in studies that show that the problem exists and having an answer. To quote: DâArrigo et al (2006)
You do not know the answers do you? You just point to searchs that list the papers without seeming to understand what they say. At first I though maybe you did know the material and could address the issues I have but I am coming to realize you don't. What are you doing, just pulling off Coby's list?
definition?
Vernon,
If you want conclusive answers I suggest you try religion. Science can only give us the best estimate relying on the quality of existing evidence.
That there is a lot of explanatory evidence does suggest that repeal of the principle of uniformity may be premature.
Vernon said:"The PETM had very high temperatures and high CO2 but I have found no studies that have a conclusive answer for what caused the warming. There are no proxies with enough temporal resolution to see which came first."
In prehistoric times natural mechanisms kicked of increases in CO2.
In historic times, we are causing the increase, which is why the modifier anthropogenic is used and why we can do something about it (i.e. stop causing the increase).
The result is independent of where the CO2 comes from.
Both cases produce warming, because both causes raise the CO2 in the atmosphere, which starts a feedback loop (higher water content in atmosphere being the largest indirect effect).
Vernon:"Then there is the other side of the story Fedorov et al (2206) showed that 5 to 3 million years ago, globally averaged temperatures were substantially higher than they are today, even though the external factors that determine climate were essentially the same. That is the CO2 level is the same as it is today. CO2 does not explain that warming."
Vernon, you use this paper as support for an argument, therefore you are stuck with the consequences. The Pliocene was much warmer given the same external factors as today, then that shows that the warming will get quite high! After all, the period in question is millions of years long (showing the accumulated effects of warming from CO2 and the other external factors), our combination of even higher CO2 and similar external factors has only been operating for the past 150 years.
In case you think it is just me saying this, here is the commentary by a climatologist in the same issue: "Researchers agree that it's urgent to sort through the complications. If there is a climatic switch as described by Fedorov and his colleagues, humans are pushing it harder and harder toward Pliocene conditions. Carbon dioxide emissions are already raising atmospheric levels into the top of the estimated range during the Pliocene, and high northern latitudes are getting warmer and wetter. That alone, say Fedorov and his colleagues, could possibly push Earth back to a permanent, globe-warming El Niño within decades to centuries. In their scenario, all it would take would be a warm surface layer in the eastern Pacific just a few tens of meters thicker than today, and the Pliocene would be back."
LB,
So you don't know, figured that with this cop-out.
TPH,
I see your steadily missing the point. The warming started before the MC, which would have reduced solar irradation in the southern hemisphere. If MC did not start the warming, what did?
You are ignoring the issue. That climate switch was not CO2 controlled, that is why it is called a paradox. The climate was much warmer despite CO2 levels being the same as today. Whatever the climate forcing that caused the never ending el nino, it was not CO2.
Your saying we are pushing it is mearly a hand wave. We very could be pushing it, but since we do not know what 'it' is, we may never know.
Vernon,
If mid-pliocene conditions represent long term equilibrium to current CO2 levels, then forgive me if I am not reassured.
"It" may very well be "...a persistent El Niño-like feature, called El Padre, that led to increased warmth of tropical ocean surface waters."
Vernon,
Late 20th century divergence means reduced certainty, not zero certainty, in reconstructions only from tree-rings. Much less for orthogonally corroborated multi-proxy reconstructions.
LB,
The fact is that with this level of CO2 in Pliocene conditions the temperature was 2-3C above the present. I agree that a continuous el nino lasting millions of years appears to be the cause of the warming but nothing indicates that it was CO2.
On tree-rings, if they do not show current levels of warming now, then how do they show warming at current or higher levels in the past. The answer is they do not. So much for temperature studies based on tree-rings, since we now know that any temperature equal to or above the present is hidden.
That kinda does away with studies that show MWP was not as warm as now, since the same studies would show we are not was warm as now.
Because they do not show divergence in the past when corroborated against, e.g., varved sediments.
Bristle cones only show divergence between stripped bark and whole bark trees in the 20th century, not before. That is why it is called 20th century divergence.
Seeing that all reports indicate the preceding Miocene was warmer than the Pliocene, don't you think it more appropriate to consider what might have been the reasons for the cooling?
You aren't going to advance your knowledge in this field much if you persist in thinking in terms of the sole and single cause of any gross climate behavior. Multi-variable non-linear complexity requires a subtlety of comprehension not captured by simple either/or conclusivity.
Vernon:
I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "driven by CO2".
Chris,
I am sure your just waiting for a gotcha moment, but from my reading there is no difference in the use of the term forcing or driver.
Vernon:
You have not shown anything that proves that CO2 is not a radiation forcer. Perhaps you think those measurements from the lab are wrong. If you do, there's nothing anyone can do for you. You are in denial.
Vernon,
The term 'forcing' has a technical and quantified meaning specific to climate science.
The term 'driver', not so much.
LB,
I have to disagree. All the non-treering proxies I have found showed the LIA, MWP, Dark Ages cool period. The MWP was as warm if not warmer than the 20th century. Since the treering studies (Mann, rest of team) show no LIA and no MWP, then I do not see how you can make that claim. Please point me to the non-treering studies that do not show either a MWP or LIA.
As to forcing or driver, either appears to be used in peer reviewed papers, by the EPA, and just about any other place I looked. Please cite your source.
Chris,
I do not disagree with the lab tests. What I have not seen is evidence of what the climate feedback is for this increase in CO2. The warming prior to 1950 is not attributed to increased CO2. The from 45-78 is assumed to be aerosoles, however, there are no studies or measurements of aerosol levels so this is pure conjecture. The total period of warming attributed to CO2 was from 1978 to 1998, not even 30 years. There are still now studies or actual measurements of the amounts or types of aerosols at the global level. So, while CO2 in the lab will cause increased warming, what does it do in the actual climate after feedbacks when we do not even know all the feedbacks or the sign of them.
LB,
I mean real cites, not wiki cites.
Real cites like THIS.
LB,
You sure? Mann et al (2008) only uses the term forcing twice in the title of works cited and never uses the words drivers. Wouldn't it be better to cite a source that actualy defines what climate forcing and climate drivers are?
So, no, not a real cite like that. Since you claim that the terms differ it would be better to cite a source or study that actually uses either term. DUH
Vernon,
I'm sorry. You apparently thought my citation of Mann '08 was referring to your semantic dithering. You're so cute when you do that.
Wow, so that is how to project when you screw up. FYI it may take a while but it helps to have read the studies.
I will not bother to answer your posts since you know little or nothing of value.
Most of it, that is. The existence of other forcings does not prove that CO2 is not a forcing.
Vernon, you flit around the blogsphere posting your ridiculous nonsense. You get whacked on one site so you bring the same nonsense to other sites.
You do your self no favour by looking so stupid. Do you really think that you know more than the scientists who have studied climate science? That is the height of arrogance.
You make a big thing about reading science papers, unfortunately you usually do not understand what you have read and grossly misinterpret what is said in the papers.
Why do you not spend some time learning rather than wasting it by posting rubbish?
This is just not true. You are bullshitting.
Chris,
Oh really, how about taking a look at http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/AREPS07.pdf Figure 7. clearly shows no MWP the LIA is ~0.2C lower than where the MWP would be on the chart.
Gee, guess it was true.
Vernon,
www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/jdean/LinahDissFinal.pdf
The studies that do not use tree-rings do show MWP and LIA. Further, the study you cited had a little bit more to add:
And as your post said, she did not use any instrumented data but Briffa et al. 1992's recontructed temperature record.
Personnaly, after a bit of reading on denrochronology I have come to the conclusion that tree-rings are not good temperature proxies for the reasons the author stated, namely that a combination of factors seems to be limiting tree growth. Picking one, temperature, out without a full understanding of all factors and a means to account for them at the individual sites is nearly impossible. This is why I think that the denerochronology temperature records diverge with the intrumented readings and that LIA and MWP are reduced. The tree-rings are not measuring temperature, but over-all climate for that species of tree.
This refers specifically to recent divergence. It does not apply to the paleo record. Please suffer the redundancy, but this is the conclusion Ababneh has successfully defended in her thesis:
I will consider your hand-waving argumetum ad ignorantiam personal opinion over Ababneh's measured, well reasoned and professional opinion when your Doctoral thesis in dendroclimatology is published.
So they're reduced now. And where, pray tell, does it say they are larger using non-dendro proxies?
Chris,
You asked so here are a few:
Millet et al (2009)
The chironomid-based inference model reconstructed a July air temperature decrease of c. 0.7°C for the DACP and 1.3°C for the LIA compared with the temperature prevailing during the MWP.
Axford et al (2009)
Much of the first millennium AD was relatively warm, with temperatures comparable to warm decades of the twentieth century. Temperatures during parts of the tenth and eleventh centuries AD may have been comparably warm.
Loehle (2007)
The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and
Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
Blass et al (2007)
We found exceptionally low temperatures between AD 1580 and 1610 (0.75°C below twentieth-century mean) and during the late Maunder Minimum from AD 1680 to 1710 (0.5°C below twentieth-century mean).
Polissar et al (2007)
Here we report a 1,500-year reconstruction of climate history and glaciation in the Venezuelan Andes using lake sediments. Four glacial advances occurred between anno Domini (A.D.) 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar-activity minima. Temperature declines of â3.2 ± 1.4°C and precipitation increases of â20% are required to produce the observed glacial responses.
Richey et al (2007)
Two multi-decadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were as warm or warmer than near-modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr B.P. Foraminiferal Mg/Ca during the coolest interval of the Little Ice Age (ca. 250 yr B.P.) indicate that SST was 2â2.5 °C below modern SST
Mangini et al (2005)
The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7 °C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values.
Mossberg et al (2005)
According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990- occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600.
Tan et al (2003)
The WTR agrees well with the HCC (Table 1), including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) [Lamb, 1965] and the Little Ice Age (LIA) [Matthes, 1939].
(Vernon - Figure 3 shows MWP was +1C and LIA was greater that -1C from the mean.)
Yang et al (2002)
General characteristics of temperature change in China during the last two millennia are most clearly expressed by the ââWeightedââ reconstruction (Figure 3). According to the
ââWeightedââ reconstruction curve, temperatures in China were above average in AD 0â240 with two peaks around AD 50 and in AD 100â240. The peak at about AD 200 represents the warmest stage of the last two millennia, temperature was even higher than during the 20th century.
(Vernon - Figure 3 shows that MWP was +1C and LIA was -1C but RWP was warmer than Modern warming)
deMenocal et al (2000)
The most recent of these events was the Little Ice Age, which occurred between 1300 to 1850 A.D., when subtropical SSTs were reduced by 3° to 4°C.
Overall from these papers it would appear that the RWP was as warm if not warmer than the present. MWP was a little below or equal to the present and the LIA was was 2.5C or more colder than the present.
Your Gish Gallop of citations suggest strong regional climate differences. None (0) of those from refereed literature indicate those extreme local variations are of global extent. Zero (0) global or hemispherical reconstructions indicate that there were planetary variations that large.
It's easy to cherry pick.
Vernon:
This is a reconstruction for the northern French Alps, not the northern hemisphere or the world which is what the global warming issue is normally concerned with. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop wasting our time and pay attention to what you purport to be doing which is providing citations that show reconstructions for comparable localities from both dendro/non dendro proxies.
You might think I should trawl through your list looking for this information which is your homework but I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL SLAVE.
Chris, your in denial. I give you studies from around the world North America, Central America, South America, Europe, China, Africa, etc. and there some global temperature reconstructions. They do not use tree-rings and they show greater temps for RWP/MWP and colder temps for LIA than the tree-ring studies do.
No your not my slave, so either read the works and have a discussion or not. I do not really care what you do, I just proved that non-tree-ring studies show greater variation than Mann and the rest of the denero's do.
Why tree-rings for temperature proxies suck:
Frank et al (2005) The ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures during the most of the overlap period with early instrumental data, with substantially lower values during the late 1700s and maximal divergence during the temperature minima around 1815.
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
But then, you dont have to read these either.
Loehle (2007) The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
the Loehle papers shows nothing like that.
the Loehle paper ends in 1935. (nineteen thirty five!)
it contains exactly ZERO information for a MWP - "today" comparison.
LB, Buy a clue. All these studies have been peer reviewed.
No, there are none. Even the one badly flawed piece of non-refereed screed you mention does not show MWP temperatures higher than present temperatures.
sod,
you have a problem with the author, take it up with him. This is a peer reviewed study.
ABSTRACT
Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to
dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C
warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
Now why would the author not be able to discern that the temperatures reconstruction for the MWP was not higher than the present?
More or less, approximately, maybe. Nonetheless some seem to believe he can polish this turd with a little spit and rubbing.
Not in this universe.
11 studies and you don't like one, again, not my problem. These are all from studies from peer-reviewed publications.
All of the studies I cited do not use tree rings as proxies. Some are global and some are not. I even cited studies that listed some of the issues with the use of tree rings, which is why I no not think they make good proxies. The studies I cited show that LIA was colder than tree proxy studies show (pick a version) and that the MWP or RWP were warmer than tree ring studies show.
Chris says "And where, pray tell, does it say they are larger using non-dendro proxies?" and when I do, complains because he has to read them.
sod says the reconstruction goes to 1935 so cannot make a determination how LIA or MWP compare with the modern period. Do I have to point out how stupid that sounds? If the reconstruction goes to 1935, well into the instrumented (modern) measurement period, then why can he not make that determination.
LB - You don't like the paper and you don't like the peer review process of the publisher - rough. What about the other 10 studies?
from the corrected [Loehle](http://www.ncasi.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025) paper:
With the corrected dating, the number of series for which data is available drops from 11 to 8 in 1935, so that subsequent values of the reconstruction would be
based on less than half the total number of series, and hence would have greatly decreased accuracy. Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935 AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007).
the paper lost 50 years. and it lost the period, that contains the modern global warming.
sod says the reconstruction goes to 1935 so cannot make a determination how LIA or MWP compare with the modern period. Do I have to point out how stupid that sounds? If the reconstruction goes to 1935, well into the instrumented (modern) measurement period, then why can he not make that determination.
because it is a complicated one. Loehle makes an attempt, but quite an amateurish one:
While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp) from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values, though the difference is not significant.
splicing a graph to the endpoint of another one is pretty unprofessional. Mann took pretty heavy fire for a much better method used on the hockeystick.
1992 isn t really the year most people would look at either, and using the 29 years smooth it contains data from the 70s...
the real problem is, that your list pretends that there are multiple proxy studies that clearly demonstrate the MWP to be globally warmer than temperature is today (or very recently).
that is simply a false claim.
None of them, nor all of them together, suggest global MWP temperatures equal or higher than 21st Century temperatures.
Vernon:
Then stop treating me like I am and wake up to yourself. You have already wasted my time getting me to check an irrelevant paper. Start doing your own homework and preferably apologize for wasting my time.
Vernon:
You didn't. You pointed me to a paper that does not show this at all.
I complained because I was misled into reading something that does not show what you said it would show. Thus you wasted my time.
I know the above comments are somewhat repetitive but when you're dealing with someone like Vernon, repetition is an aid to their cognition.
Chris,
I gave you both regional and global studies that show that warming for MPW or RWP was greater than the tree ring based temperature reconstructions, that LIA was colder than the said reconstructions. Further I provided studies that show the problems and issues with tree ring based studies. It must be disappointing when the only defense of your position is to disparage me and refuse to read the studies.
So in conclusion, I am not responsible for your limitations. You asked for proof that there were non-tree ring studies that show MWP was warmer and LIA was cooler. I presented some. Now your in denial.
sod,
I am not going to defend that study. Is Loehle the only study you have issues with? Does that mean that you agree with the rest?
LB,
From your statement it is pretty plan that you did not read them.
You asked for proof that there were non-tree ring studies that show MWP was warmer and LIA was cooler.
Vernon, the studies you showed will all fall apart, when anyone bothers to take a second look at them.
your claim was that the Loehle study showed MWP at 0.3°C above "20th century". the paper itselfs only claims 0.07°C, and even that only by using multiple tricks. (do you really think that people speak about the 70s when they talk about the modern global warming???)
Vernon:
The very first one you gave me does not do that. It made no mention of tree ring based reconstructions in the same area (or any other area) being disparate from the reconstruction presented in the paper . Until you show where it mentions such a disparity you are in denial. The abstract is below. Show us where it says tree rings have a disparity or withdraw it from your list and apologize for wasting my time.
Chris,
quit trying to change the subject. You did not ask for studies that compared non-tree ring to tree-ring studies. You asked for non-tree ring studies that show the temperature variation for MWP and LIA was greater than the tree-ring studies.
Now you change your requirements, lucky for me I already posted some of those studies:
Frank et al (2005) The ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures during the most of the overlap period with early instrumental data, with substantially lower values during the late 1700s and maximal divergence during the temperature minima around 1815.
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
I can understand your not being happy when you were actually presented with studies.
I do have a question, if that study does not reflect the climate for part or all of Europe, then why do the other studies represent more than just the location of the proxy?
On the contrary, tree ring studies comparable regionally to non-tree ring proxies you cite do show similar MWP and LIA characteristics.
Frank, Esper (2005)
Not much proof here.
If you want to argue Mann vs. Moberg, that's fine. It still won't provide a dime's evidence that the GMST in the MWP was equal to today's.
Vernon,
And WHERE does the first paper you stated say ANYTHING about non-tree ring studies that show the temperature variation for MWP and LIA being greater than the tree-ring studies?
By the way, a graph that shows how well tree-ring and non-tree-ring reconstructions agree is here. It looks like hell will freeze over (after the warm age) before old Vernon comes up with any similar type of graph proving his assertion.
Chris,
This conversation keeps changes so I though that I would just layout the whole thing. It started when I said âThis is why I think that the denerochronology temperature records diverge with the instrumented readings and that LIA and MWP are reduced.â And you answered with "And where, pray tell, does it say they are larger using non-dendro proxies?"
I am guessing that you did not know about the studies or you would not have asked for them. I presented eleven regional and global studies from peer reviewed journals that showed greater warmth during the MWP and the LIA being colder. You then say "And WHERE does the first paper you stated say ANYTHING about non-tree ring studies that show the temperature variation for MWP and LIA being greater than the tree-ring studies?"
See, you went from where are any studies that show larger MWP/LIA temperatures are higher/lower, to these studies do not do a comparison between tree rings and non-tree rings. That is a significant change from the initial question. To answer the new question I presented three studies that show that that ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures and that tree-ring temperature reconstructions diverge from the instrumented temperature record.
At that point you change again to "On the contrary, tree ring studies comparable regionally to non-tree ring proxies you cite do show similar MWP and LIA characteristics." You must be getting desperate. While I agree that the characteristic are similar, the non-tree ring studies differed from the tree ring studies by showing the MWP was warmer and LIA was colder. Wait, wasnât that the whole point of this conversation? Why, yes it was!
You keep morphing what you want, I expect, in the hope that I will make a mistake and you can then crow how stupid I am. Sorry, but so far I have proved the evidence that you asked for each time. You are in denial.
Do not know why my last post says by Chris?
Vernon,
You can't claim victory by blaring out such a transparent non sequitur. The tree rings confirmed the high values from glacier studies, and not by substantially underestimating them.
The case for tree ring low frequency insensitivity has been made and can provide no more evidence for its existence than to show incidences where it is possible.
Low frequency proxies have their problems, too.
LB,
The challenge by Chris was to supply non-tree ring temperature reconstuctions that show the MWP warmer and LIA colder than the tree ring temperature reconstuctions. I did. He kept changing what he wanted and I kept providing it.
I made the case that tree-ring studies under estimated warming and produced the studies that showed that it does. What is he going to demand next?
Vernon,
Single local or regional proxies that differ from global averages are not comparable.
Single local proxies that differ from global averages are not comparable.
Single local proxies that differ from global averages are not comparable.
What does that suggest about climate sensitivity?
Thanks LB, I see where Vernon is going wrong. He's trying to compare northern hemisphere average temperature variation as in http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/AREPS07.pdf with regional temperature variation as in Millet et al (2009) The chironomid-based inference model, for the northern French Alps. I'm sorry Vernon, you are comparing apples with oranges. Regional temperature variations are normally far greater than hemispheric average temperature variations. Just because dendro proxies show far less variation for a hemispheric reconstruction than non-dendro proxies do for a regional reconstruction, it doesn't mean that dendro proxies will give less variation than non-dendro proxies for the SAME area.
Also, in case you missed it the first time, this graph proves you wrong.
Andrew Bolt is [using Jon Jenkins](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…) as an authority for debunking AGW.
I wonder if Jenkins would be willing to come here and defend his latest effort in tabloid science, given that he ran like whipped dog from his [arse-kicking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…) on Deltoid in January.
Odd, Mann's work was a Northern Hemisphere reconstruction, Mossberg (2005) was a Northern Hemisphere reconstuction, Loehle (2007) was one too. Guess that those does not count as an apples to apples comparison.
von Storch (2004)The centennial variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the regression-based
methods applied here [Mann et al], suggesting that past variations may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions.
Frank et al (2005) The ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures during the most of the overlap period with early instrumental data, with substantially lower values during the late 1700s and maximal divergence during the temperature minima around 1815.
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
I guess these do not count either. Oh, and did you look at that graph? It showed non-tree ring proxies were warmer and colder than tree-ring proxies. Wow, who would have though.
Vernon,
What graph? Not THIS one.
Tree rings underestimate borehole anomolies, or borehole reconstructions underestimate past surface temperatures? Dasenko is writing screed. He's speculating. Earthen boreholes don't accurately measure any variability as far back as they can be useful. When Huang gets around to addressing land use, snow fall changes, spacial sampling issues, etc., and quits pretending he can ignore them, a useful co-efficient between borehole and surface temperatures may emerge. Probably somewhere between Huang's 0.9C/500yrs. and Mann's 0.5C/500yrs. No one knows. It's a matter of debate, but the difference only relates to how cold it was in the LIA. The MWP is only weakly influenced by low frequency fitting in Moberg. Mann '08, with tree rings included, has higher MWP values than Moberg.
Loehle is junk. If you can't understand why, you don't understand crap.
D'Arrigo is about 20th Century divergence. There is no applicability to paleo reconstruction.
Frank is well explained by uncertainties in the 18th Century instrumental record.
Von Storch '04 is long past its use by date, as is MBH '98. Let it go. They have.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html
LB,
2004 is too old, how about 2009?
Christiansen et al (2009)The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.
Or how about a few more studies that show that low-frequence varibility is being under estimated?
Riedwyl et al (2008)This paper presents a comparison of principal component (PC) regression and regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) to reconstruct European summer and winter surface air temperature over the past millennium. ⦠For the specific predictor network given in this paper, both techniques underestimate the target temperature variations to an increasing extent as more noise is added to the signal, albeit RegEM less than with PC regression.
Von Storch (2009) The methods are Composite plus Scaling, the inverse regression method of Mann et al. (Nature 392:779â787, 1998) and a direct principal-components regression method. ⦠All three methods underestimate the simulated variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature, but the Composite plus Scaling method clearly displays a better performance and is robust against the different noise models and network size.
I also noticed you did not bad mouth Datsenko et al (2008)or Moberg (2005). Now much more needs to be presented to show that low frequency variability is consistantly underestimated.
Vernon:
Whatever happened to Millet et al (2009)? Vernon fed us a red herring and now he shamelessly forgets feeding us that red herring. I'll catch up with his latest assertions later but just want to point out now how he treats other commenters like crap. What a jerk.
Vernon,
Excuse me for not being particularly convinced by pseudo-proxy simulations.
I am going to say this again"
This conversation keeps changes so I though that I would just layout the whole thing. It started when I said âThis is why I think that the denerochronology temperature records diverge with the instrumented readings and that LIA and MWP are reduced.â And you answered with "And where, pray tell, does it say they are larger using non-dendro proxies?"
You did not specify global or regional not-tree ring reconstuctions so I gave you both.
You whine because you did not clearly ask for what you wanted. You asked for proxies that showed more warming or more cooling, you got them. You asked for papers that show tree ring vs non-tree ring, gave you those, you still complain.
You keep changing the discussion as you keep losing. You do not see me whining about you wishy-washiness. Your are the one being a jerk.
Please point out where I have not supplied what your requested. Use the words you posted here, can't can you because you got what you asked for every time.
I still put this down to you did not think you could be proven wrong and now that the studies have been presented that do, your being a sore loser, or maybe just a loser.
LB,
So, the fact that current studies show that current temperature reconstuctions underestimates low-frequency temperature variations is going to be ignored?
Christiansen et al (2009)The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
Von Storch et al (2009)
The methods are Composite plus Scaling, the inverse regression method of Mann et al. (Nature 392:779â787, 1998) and a direct principal-components regression method. ⦠All three methods underestimate the simulated variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature, but the Composite plus Scaling method clearly displays a better performance and is robust against the different noise models and network size.
Riedwyl et al (2008)
This paper presents a comparison of principal component (PC) regression and regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) to reconstruct European summer and winter surface air temperature over the past millennium. ⦠For the specific predictor network given in this paper, both techniques underestimate the target temperature variations to an increasing extent as more noise is added to the signal, albeit RegEM less than with PC regression.
You do not like peer review studies because they do not support your cause, how do you like it when it has been shown that the studies you do like do reflect the actual warming or cooling?
Wasn't the big argument that current warming is greater than any warming in the last 1000, 1500, 2000 years? Guess what, those studies can not be used as a basis for that claim.
, Loehle (2007) was one too.
could you please make up your mind?
you can t continue to use the study, if you are unwilling to "defend it".
as i showed above, Loehle does NOT show the MWP being warmer than current temperature. fact.
vern,
I don't ignore them, I find them inconclusive. To statistically simulate the auto-correlation of a non-linear multi-variate series introduces the possibility of a low frequency bias by the act of analysis.
The Moberg construction doesn't really hang on low frequency proxies per se. Benthic cores, glacial advance and retreat, etc. all calibrate closely enough to tree-rings, annular sediments, corals, ice cores, etc. The single proxy measurement that is, maybe, out of the envelope is boreholes.
There is room for argument for why this discrepancy exists and no convincing answers I have found. I prefer plausible physical explanations and corroborating evidence over statistical speculation, though.
That's just me.
LB,
There are two different issues, as I see it, and I want to separate them so that we are talking about the same things.
1. Tree-rings, the modern divergence problem high lites that there are a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. [D'Arrigo et al (2007)] This is the low frequency under estimation of variance problem that trees rings have.
2. The statistical methodology used used has been shown to under estimate low frequency variance.
Please note that the problem is not that the tree-rings do not show the temperature trend but that they do not show the actual temperature variance. From my reading in the studies presented, the Mann studies are shown to under estimate the temperature by a 2x or more.
You cannot take exception to the statistic since all of the studies are based on statistics.
It has nothing to do with tree rings. All proxies that estimate SAT reconstruct LIA temperatures warmer than for boreholes.
It is a real conundrum, but you can just wave your hands and say it's because of tree rings? That's bullshit.
RE: statistics.
Artificial data â real world data.
test:FAIL
The trend is the variance over time. You aren't making sense.
Vernon:
Vernon suddenly forgot about Millet et al (2009) and he complains about someone else changing the discussion. What a hypocrite. He pointed out that I:
and that is indeed what I continued to ask, almost entirely word for word, in my reply:
By some bizarre cognitive failure, Vernon thinks this is "changing the discussion".
LB,
Wow! are you stupid! Please show me the real world data that does not use statistics to reconstruct temperatures.
Chris,
You really cannot address the issue can you? In that list of studies, two were non-tree ring Northern Hemisphere reconstructions. I then proved studies that show that there are significant issues with tree rings.
You are in some serious denial.
Vernon, make it explicit for us - because I'm having a fuck of a time figuring out what you're trying to say.
Exactly which two of your studies are Northern Hemisphere non-tree ring studies? Just to make it clear, so I know which ones you think they are. And which are the Northern hemisphere tree ring studies to which you are comparing them?
In what ways do they differ significantly from comparable Northern Hemisphere tree ring studies (be specific - "low frequency variance" doesn't tell us much), and what exactly does that call into question about the overall northern hemispheric reconstructions?
Vernon (#182), did you even read the paper by Riedwyl et al.?
It would appear that their data show that the warmest period from 1500 to the present was in the range of 1700 to 1800. Wasnât that when you deniers insist that it was so cold because of the âLIAâ?
Interesting that Vernon doesnât even know how to correctly cite references. Maybe he doesnât want us to read them since he usually completely fabricates what they say or cherry picks the data to make it say something completely different from what the authors say.
Vernon, maybe I am misinterpreting what you are trying to tell us. Maybe you are really into comic relief rather than science. That would explain a lot.
I wonât bother checking your other cites.
vern,
Multi-variate analysis is used for climate reconstruction. It is different from statistical analysis in that the variability in the data is known to be mostly deterministic as opposed to probabilistic. Statistical analysis is used mostly to establish uncertainty and confidence levels.
The point I was so stupidly making was that statistically fitted pseudo-data, no matter how cleverly crafted, will never adequately mimic deterministic real world data. Tests that compare pseudo-data to real world data are GIGO.
Again, statistically fitted pseudo-data, no matter how cleverly crafted, will never adequately mimic deterministic real world data. Tests that compare pseudo-data to real world data are GIGO.
If you missed that, statistically fitted pseudo-data, no matter how cleverly crafted, will never adequately mimic deterministic real world data. Tests that compare pseudo-data to real world data are GIGO.
Also, Frank, et al (2005) actually shows the exact opposite of what you are arguing. Have you given any thought about what it means for climate sensitivity if you were right?
Ian,
Nice piece of misdirection. These studies were not temperature reconstructions, but rather these studies looked into the specified statical methodologies, in Riedwylâs case, principle component regression and regularized expectation maximization. He found that both under estimated. Which if you had read the paper would understand that that team, like the rest I listed found that low frequency variation was under estimated.
Get that Ian, the current studies, the whole reason that the claim that we are warmer now than any other time in the 20th century is not supportable. Mannâs studies in particular were found to under estimate typically 20%â50%.
LB,
Let me make sure I understand you. Your going to ignore peer reviewed papers for studies about the methodologies because they do not use real world data. What qualifications do you have that makes you more qualified than these scientist? When did you submit comments to the journals refuting these works?
All I see from you on this is a hand wave saying ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Sorry, but that is just denial.
vern,
No. Because they are comparing real data with synthetic data.
Again, statistically fitted pseudo-data, no matter how cleverly crafted, will never adequately mimic deterministic real world data. Tests that compare pseudo-data to real world data are GIGO.
Not every peer reviewed monograph is equal.
And then there is all the qualitative real world data that supports that it is hotter now.
Glacier recession fronts, compared to historic records. Tropical ice cap recession uncovering in situ organic remains that are dated to gt 5000 years ago. Sequential N to S failure of Antarctic ice shelves dated to gt ~10k years. Greenland farmers, on the exact same sites as the norse vikings, routinely getting 2 grass hay cuttings a year, and flirting with 3, when the norse got one.
Just off the top of my head.
Not to mention, if the reconstruction methods underestimate low frequency warming - that means the MWP high is a bit higher, the LIA low is a bit lower, and the modern high up to the end of the reconstruction is a bit higher - and the impact is largely unchanged. Except that greater variation for the small forcings in play, means that it is likely that sensitivity is higher than estimated.
This is not a winning argument for Vernon.
Yet more hand waving. So per LB, there is no way to test the methodologies used for temperature reconstruction, we just have to believe in them.
Mann under estimated by 50% so MWP and LIA were both twice as warm and twice as cold. Feel free to present some actual studies that back up your position.
!00% bullshit. Follow the PINK line.
Pink
LB,
Cherry picking the way to go. Going to argue about the studies that show that tree rings are not good temperature proxies? When all the methodologies have been shown to under estimate low frequency, the one that does it the least badly, is still bad.
You do not like that these studies wash away the foundation of AGW.
Lets see, the methodologies under estimate, the models are being proven wrong. The key point for the models is polar amplification - Antarctic cooling for last 40 years, Arctic is warming but at about the same rate as the whole Northern Hemisphere. In fact, the Arctic is not as warm now as it was earlier last century. There is no evidence of the upper troposphere warming.
One brick at a time the whole AGW house is falling apart as more is known.
Incredible. After I wrote:
Vernon comes back with:
Just amazing, he can't answer a simple question and accuses someone else of changing the discussion and then when it is pointed out that his accusation is crap he then continues on his merry way and makes another crap accusation. The man has a delusional disorder.
Vernon:
Plainly delusional.
Vernon, you are completely ignorant of what you are talking about. The higher latitudes, esp in the North, have been warming faster. You are either being dishonest or only obtain your "information" from dishonest sources.
Since you have such a problem in understanding the written word, here is a pictorial representation of global temperature anomalies.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2009+2005+2007.pdf
Please tell us what you see from these figures. Where is most of the warming occurring?
Chris,
I presented both global and regional studies that showed great variability that tree-ring based studies. You then switch from show me a study not based on tree rings that shows greater variability than tree ring based reconstruction do, to that study is only about Europe not the Northern Hemisphere, ignoring the studies are Northern Hemisphere to Northern Hemisphere. I also presented studies that showed some of the issues with tree rings as temperature proxies such as:
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
I then presented studies that show the weakness inherent to all the reconstruction methodologies regardless of the proxy used such as:
Christiansen et al (2009). The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.
On a slightly different topic, I present studies that show that the current Artic temperatures are not the highest they have been in the past century. That the Arctic is warming at only a slightly faster rate than the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. The quote was:
Polyakov et al (2003) The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2°C, so that over the entire record the warming trend was 0.094°C decadeâ1, with stronger spring- and wintertime warming. The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decadeâ1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decadeâ1). The oscillatory behavior of Arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of the large-amplitude LFO. For example, the Arctic temperature was higher in the 1930sâ40s than in recent decades, and hence a trend calculated for the period 1920 to the present actually shows cooling. Enhancement of computed trends in recent decades can be partially attributed to the current positive LFO phase.
I even addressed:
Serreze et al (2006) Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification.
He attempted to use the change in isolation due to the loss of Arctic sea ice as a reason for there not being Polar amplification. The problem is that since he published, the sea ice has been rebounding since 2007. It is apparent that an Arctic tipping point in sea ice did not happen and the problem of no polar amplification still exists.
Ian,
If you bothered to read Polyakov et al (2003) you would know that the apparent higher temperature anomalies in the Arctic are due to picking a baseline that was one of the coldest periods during the century. The current warming has yet to exceed the 1930s â 40s warming.
So, in a nutshell:
1. Tree rings have issues that make them a poor temperature proxy.
2. Non-tree ring reconstructions show greater temperature variability than tree ring reconstructions.
3. All the methodologies have been found to under estimate low frequency temperature variability.
4. There is no polar amplification.
4a. Artic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH as a whole.
4b. Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.
So basically, the basis for the present warming being exceptional is not supported. The polar amplification that is called for is not happening. How much more has to not happen?
In a nutshell, Vernon, who claims to have no background in science at all, as I have said on another blog, is suffering from some sort of delusional psychosis. Get treatment!
Ian,
I guess you cannot address the science. Is this the best you can do, make personal attacks on the individual rather than address the studies?
vern,
Since you badly misinterpret or draw unsupported conclusions from all the studies you mention, psychology is the proper discipline to address your raves.
Vernon, it is you who do not address the science.
Everything you post has been cut and pasted from denier web sites. You know nothing of what you write but merely parrot rubbish which appeals to your arrogant, selfish and ignorant persona.
Here is a quote about polar amplification, some thing which you deny is happening:
"a decrease from then until the mid-1960s,
and a steep increase thereafter with a warming rate of
0.4 ºC per decade). It is very probable that the Arctic
has warmed over the past century, at a rate greater than
the average over the Northern Hemisphere. It is probable
that polar amplification has occurred over the past
50 years."
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xcjfa
Warming in the Arctic of 0.4 degrees C per decade is about 2-3 times the global average. You are so dishonest but it is to be expected from deniers like you.
LB,
Nice claim, now back it up. Where did I misinterpret the studies, follow that up with how my conclusions are unsupported. Without that it is just more attack the person rather than accept the study.
Seems to be a standard, attack the person rather than deal with the evidence.
Ian,
As hard is it for you to comprehend, I have only posted quotes from the studies. I do not post from an advocacy site as they present slanted opinions and I would rather see what the authors actually said.
Polyakov et al (2003) The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decadeâ1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decadeâ1).
Further, a newer study by Serreze et al (2006) Found:
Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification.
Here is the full citation :
Polyakov, I., Bekryaev, R., Bhatt, U., Colony, R., Maskshtas, A., & Walsh, D., (2003) Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875â2000, Journal of Climate, 16 (June): 2067â2077
Pretty sure I did not make that up but then you could try reading the study.
Ian, there is a significant difference between the Northern Hemisphere and global. Also having read that chapter of the book, I noticed that they do not compare Arctic with Northern Hemisphere. They compared lat 0-60 with lat 60-90. You should try to do apples to apples comparisons.
What I did not see in the document was the adjustment for Arctic Oscillation, which as Serreze (2006) pointed out, is responsible for most of the warming and that an enhanced Arctic signal is not readily evident.
Vernon, it has got nothing to do with apples and oranges but everything to do with cherries. You cherry pick just about everyone of your quotes.
Ian,
How about you show how I misquoted the studies, how I misrepresented the studies, and how my conclusions are wrong? Just to be different, why not try some facts rather than your usual slander.
This will be my last comment directed towards you till you start providing facts rather than insults.
Vernon said: "This will be my last comment directed towards you".
Please, please I hope Vernon is telling the truth at last.
vern,
That's what I've been doing. Redundantly, again and again.
LB,
Nope, what you have done is say that you don't like the methodology used in the studies. Further, you cherry pick that RegEM does better than the other method while ignoring the fact that neither accurately capture the full low frequency variation.
You have not produced anything other than opinion on why the studies should be ignored.
Vernon quotes Further Serreze et al (2006)as this:
"Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification."
It turns out this is from the abstract of Mark C. Serreze1 and Jennifer A. Francis, The Arctic Amplification Debate, in Climatic Change.
But Vernon is quote mining - Serreze et al is saying nearly the opposite of what that mined quote implies. This is the full abstract from which he carefully pulled that quote:
"Abstract Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification. Disparity is greatly reduced, however, if one compares observed trajectories to near-future simulations (2010â2029), rather than to the doubled-CO2 or late 21st century conditions that are typically cited. These near-future simulations document a preconditioning phase of Arctic amplification, characterized by the initial retreat and thinning of sea ice, with imprints of low-frequency variability. Observations show these same basic features, but with SATs over the Arctic Ocean still largely constrained by the insulating effects of the ice cover and thermal inertia of the upper ocean. Given the general consistency with model projections, we are likely near the threshold when absorption of solar radiation during summer limits ice growth the following autumn and winter, initiating a feedback leading to a substantial increase in Arctic Ocean SATs."
Vernon, with that kind of selective quoting, making it look like Serezze et al is saying the opposite of what it actually says, why should anyone believe a word you post?
...when increased noise is added to the pseudo-proxies, indicating only that methods of approximation are approximate (we knew that), PCA more than REGem. It's conceptually possible to do better, but both methods are undeniably sound within a BCH, because, conversely, as the pseudo-data approximations of S/N approach that of real world data, they become more robust.
You are making perfection the enemy of the pretty dang good.
Lee,
Read the study in depth. Their conclusion is that there is no Arctic amplification now but we could be getting ready for some. That is the point and they still make the Arctic is in pre-Arctic Amplification inSerreze et al (2009)
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:75rom87kSU4J:ww…
That the sea ice cover is responding to the effects of GHG loading finds strong support from analysis of the IPCC-AR4 simulations (e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007). Whether the warming seen in the NCEP and JRA-25 data is still within the expected range of natural variability is unclear. That the Arcticis home to strong variability is well recognized. For example, a period of strong high-latitude warming occurred from about 1930 to 1940 (Polyakov et al., 2002; Overland et al.,2004). While likely in part associated with reduced ice cover(Bengtsson et al., 2004), sparse data precludes drawing firm conclusions.
So that teams is says that sparse data precludes drawing firm conclusions. Which is his teams on going position, that polar amplification is coming but it is not here yet. That we cannot tell. So while he wants there to be polar amplification he is honest enough to admit that it may be coming but there is no proof on any now.
Bitz et al (2006)
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/bitz_goosse.pdf
Amplification of Arctic surface warming is a well known feature of climate model predictions for the mid and late 21st century. However, as of 2004, observed Arctic surface warming is not yet significantly higher than the whole northern hemisphere. Using historical runs and future scenarios to estimate trends and internal variability, we predict Arctic warming won't be significantly greater than the northern hemisphere until at least 2020.
So like Serreze, there is no Arctic amplification now but there will be some in the future.
Wrong, Vernon. They look at Arctic OCEAN air temps only - temps over the sea. We know that arctic onshore temps are showing moderate amplification - the temp record is clear. And the Serrezi paper looks at earctic SEA surface air temps, not arctic temps in general.
They also show that what is happening in Arctic is what the models predict. Air temps are constrained by all that melting ice - duh.
Do you realize that you are arguing that the models predict that there will be a lot of amplified arctic warming, we don't see it, and these guys use models to show that we don't expect to see that much warming yet? That you are using model results that predict the amount of arctic warming we are seeing now, to argue that the models are predicting too much warming?
Get freaking real.
There is no polar amplification. 4a. Artic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH as a whole. 4b. Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.
this is simply a [false claim](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&mon…)
why would you invent stuff, when you can simply look at reality with this nice NASA tool?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
sod,
why do you make dumb statements with out reading the studies? Bitz et al (2006) clearly says:
Amplification of Arctic surface warming is a well known feature of climate model predictions for the mid and late 21st century. However, as of 2004, observed Arctic surface warming is not yet significantly higher than the whole northern hemisphere. Using historical runs and future scenarios to estimate trends and internal variability, we predict Arctic warming won't be significantly greater than the northern hemisphere until at least 2020.
Serreze et al (2006) and (2009) say that there is no current Arctic amplification but also says it is coming in the future.
The fact is that the current Arctic warming is not significantly different from the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
About the nifty GISS maps, if you bothered to read the studies you would know as that the GISS anomoly baseline just happens to be during one of the two cold periods in the Arctic, so all warming looks exceptional. What is not discussed is that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s-40s. If you really want to cherry pick almost any long term trend in the Arctic that starts in the 30s or early 40s show cooling.
The models call for Polar amplification yet to date, there has been none. Further, the Antarctic's warmest period was also the 1930s-40s. The Antarctic like the Arctic had a cold period from the 50s-70s. Then the Antarctic differed from the Arctic by starting to cool. Don't you find it odd that the only modern time with every part of the globe warming was during the 1930s-40s? That since then the Arctic and Antarctic have become out of sync with warming at one pole and cooling at the other?
Basically, sod, the exceptional warming in the Arctic is an artifact, not reality. Change the base line to 1820-1950 and you would see cooling instead of warming. Don't just look at the pictures, look at the why behind the pictures.
About the nifty GISS maps, if you bothered to read the studies you would know as that the GISS anomoly baseline just happens to be during one of the two cold periods in the Arctic, so all warming looks exceptional. What is not discussed is that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s-40s. If you really want to cherry pick almost any long term trend in the Arctic that starts in the 30s or early 40s show cooling.
Vernon, please think and read before you post. there is no "GISS anomaly baseline" for those graphs. you can chose the base line as you want, in that great tool provided by NASA. please try it, before you judge it!!!
you claimed cooling over the last 40 years. so i chose a baseline around 40 years ago, and a period up to now, to check your claim. of course your claim turned out to be FALSE.
Basically, sod, the exceptional warming in the Arctic is an artifact, not reality. Change the base line to 1820-1950 and you would see cooling instead of warming. Don't just look at the pictures, look at the why behind the pictures.
no, there is [no arctic cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&mon…) with such a baseline. (1880-1950. the dataset starts in 1880)
will you please stop making false claims now?
sod,
Ran the program for 1925 - 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Aisa. Who knew!
If you really want to show something, set the smoothing to 250km. Then GISS shows the truth, mainly that they do not know what the termperature at the arctic is.
Vernon - bullcrap.
"Ran the program for 1925 - 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Asia. Who knew!"
I just ran it, 1925-1955 baseline, showing Annual J-D 1999-2008 anomoly, and nearly the entire Arctic is warming - with a couple of small spots that are neutral, and NO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH areas of cooling north of the equator.
None.
Doyo think no one is going to check your claims, Vernon?
Vernon shows incompetence:"Ran the program for 1925 - 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Aisa. Who knew!"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
The warmest time in the last century was the last decade. If you would like to stick with 30 year periods, then compare the 1979-2009 (note how this includes all these years of cooling lately - LOL) to 1925-1955 as a baseline. If what you say is true, then there should only be red in Siberia. Guess what? Vernon FAIL.
Vernon said:"If you really want to show something, set the smoothing to 250km. Then GISS shows the truth, mainly that they do not know what the termperature at the arctic is."
By Vernonlogic, you don't know what the global temperature is even if you have a thermometer every square inch, because who knows what the temperature is between them!
and I just repeated it, 1925-1955 baseline, land and ocean, 250km smoothing radius, 1999 - 2008 J-D anomaly. It's a sea of orange and yellow, Vernon, for the entire effing globe, with the exception of the eastern half of the Pacific, which is neutral to slightly warming. And there is clearly apparent Arctic amplification.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Vernon (#211) said: "Ian,
If you bothered to read Polyakov et al (2003) you would know that the apparent higher temperature anomalies in the Arctic are due to picking a baseline that was one of the coldest periods during the century. The current warming has yet to exceed the 1930s â 40s warming.
So, in a nutshell:
1. Tree rings have issues that make them a poor temperature proxy.
2. Non-tree ring reconstructions show greater temperature variability than tree ring reconstructions.
3. All the methodologies have been found to under estimate low frequency temperature variability.
4. There is no polar amplification. 4a. Artic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH as a whole. 4b. Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.
So basically, the basis for the present warming being exceptional is not supported. The polar amplification that is called for is not happening. How much more has to not happen?"
First of all what have treerings got to do with arctic amplification?
Secondly you don't know the difference between magnitude of something and its rate of change. Arctic amplification refers to rate of change not absolute amount of change. In case you don't know what "rate of change" is it is the slope you see when you look at real scientific data (looked at any real data recently? I didn't think so).
I've been trying to get you to read good and honest papers for some time now.
Here are a couple of reports which show that you are wrong:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap1-2/sap1-2-final-report-all… (read chapter 4 in particular)
http://www.arcticwarming.net/science (click on "rapidly warming Arctic climate and the large projected changes")
These two reports, and many others show that arctic amplification is well underway and is not confined to models.
Ran the program for 1925 - 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Aisa. Who knew!
your claim is false. again. here is the [map](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&mon…) of the last decade against a base of 1925-55.
why don t you provide us with your map that shows arctic cooling?
just use markdown, as described above the comments box to post the link.
you have made 3 false claims about a base period now. will you finally admit to be wrong?
See the MOVIE.
t_p_hamilton, you just jumped in without reading anything didn't you. We are talking about the Arctic which was warmer during the 30s-40s. I would say "Buy a clue next time" but that would just be mean.
sod, did you bother to turn the ocean on? I ran it with J-D, ocean on, baseline 1925-1955, polar view. Since we are talking climate and not weather, I did the 30 year trend from 1978-2008 and it shows that the Arctic is cooling. In fact, if you do a movie, it shows that warming is slowly moving toward the pole. Did the trend from 1956, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, etc and they all show the warming is higher in the lower latitudes than in the higher latitudes.
That is my point, that there is no Polar Amplification. NASA GISS confirms it.
The models predict Polar Amplification and there is not any.
Now anyone want to address why the models, all models, predict Polar Amplification but it is not happening.
Vernon,
You poor dear.
Bless your pointy little head.
Vernon, I don't know what the hell you are looking at, but it ain't the same thing the rest of us are looking at.
I just repeated teh exact same view you jus scribed.
It shows cooling of 0.5 - 1 C over Greenland, and over a smaller patch in the Arctic ocean north of central russia. It shows warming of 0.5 - 1C over nearly half the Rrctic ocean, with the remainder beign neutral. It shows warming of 0.5 - 1C over all land masses north of the arctic circle except Greenland.
Note that this is for the entire modern warming period, which means it it includes the late 70s, early 80, where modern warming is just taking off. Show the last `15 yeas, and it ic s clear that the warmest spots ae high N latitudes, some of the high S latitudes,a nd the alrgvge continental interiors.
Vernon, you are simply wrong. Using the period 1925 - 1955 as baseline, we see clearly warmer arctic temperatures overall, and the warm anomaly becomes more pronounced in more recent years.
. Since we are talking climate and not weather, I did the 30 year trend from 1978-2008 and it shows that the Arctic is cooling.
i shall hereby name this rather common denialist tactic "the Loehle trick".
the very same people, who think that 2002 to 2008 gives a good climate trend, or who question the use of a global temperature in general, believe that a temperature average over the last 30 years is the best approximation of temperature TODAY that is available!
of course it is just by chance, that including those 70s make temperature (today!!!) look rather low.
ps: notice another common denialist approach: cherry picking the warmest base period available, after having accused the NASA of doing exactly that, when in fact they didn t do it...
LB @ 238:
That graphic is stunning - wonder how Vernon is going to squirm now?
That graphic is stunning - wonder how Vernon is going to squirm now?
looking at his past performance, i don t expect any excuses.
instead he will be using that graph to determine what base periods to use, when he gets into an argument about another zone... (a good one for [antarctic](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py) seems to be 1955 to 58...)
I can't believe I wasted the better part of this afternoon reading through all the twists and turns, logical fallacies, falsehoods and overall shiftiness spouted by Vernon since post #65. I even bothered to d/l the references that he cited in #186 just to pick out his selective quote mining. That's 4 hours I will never, ever get back again. EVER.
LB, Lee, Chris O'N., Ian F., sod...I applaud your patience and general restraint. I've seen category 5 flame wars started for less in the old Usenet days.
Now can we all just ignore this troll? Seriously, it's not worth the effort.
I guess I will try this one more time. I forgot to mention that you need to put smoothing to 250km. Do it, run the program for any time period. There is almost no warming above the Arctic circle. Most the warming is south of the Arctic circle.
Once you do this, please explain how GISS shows warming in the Arctic.
Vern,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
LB,
Other than showing that the warmest period for the Arctic was in the 1930s-40s, what was I suppose to see. I already knew that. I also noted that the big point Hansen made was that the warming from 1980 on was different than the 30-40 warming. The 1980 warming was coming for the lower latitudes unlike the 30-40 warming that came from the poles.
Lets think on that, in the 30-40 period, both Antarctica and Arctic were warming. There was more warming at the poles than at the lower latitudes. Does this start to sound what the models predicted for global warming? As Hansen pointed out, warming was not coming from the poles for the current warming. There is cooling in Antarctica and no Arctic amplification signal. This is not what the models predicted.
Vernon refuses to read any papers which show him out to be either mistaken or a liar. He has not commented on the two reports I cited which do show arctic amplification has occurred.
Vernon, you are pathetic.
For the record, I am done talking to Ian. All he seems to do in any discussion is ad hom, name calling, general rudeness, etc. If he actually could participate in the discussion, I might possibly over look this. He does not and I will not.
Vern,
Yeah, Vern, polar temps were almost as warm as the mid-century period in 1986. They are only significantly warmer since about 2000. But significantly warmer they are now, in spite of so-called recent global cooling, eh?
I linked the Hansen paper to aid you in understanding how the 1200km tele-connectivity is calculated, but, obviously, you need to have things spelled out to you slowly with small words and long pauses.
vern,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/time_series.html
You're blind, aren't you?
In case any one is wondering, Vernon has had a case of extreme ad hominemitis over at Greenfyre's. I have had a long discussion there and he continually attacked me with ad hominems.
All I did was tell the truth and call him a liar :-) (which as anyone reading his posts here knows is in fact true therefore not an ad hominem)
As you can see I think that I am correct in my assessment of Vernon and he is entirely wrong when he says "It would appear that you do not understand the science and just keep going to the advocacy sites for yet more talking points". Or this: "I have come to believe that all you can do is call names since the science appears to be beyond you".
Maybe now he will crawl back into his hole and spend some time pondering on his arrogance, ignorance and rudeness.
The science seems to be beyond Vernon now since he refuses to discuss the science I presented which shows him to be wrong, along with the postings of numerous others.
Time to go and do some real science now but I won't let the likes of Vernon spread their disinformation and misinterpretation of science though the blogsphere.
Vernon, 'pathetic' is being kind.
Vernon said:"tphamilton, you just jumped in without reading anything didn't you. We are talking about the Arctic which was warmer during the 30s-40s. I would say "Buy a clue next time" but that would just be mean."
The arctic was not much warmer than now during the 30s-40s . It was warmer than the surrounding years, which is the reason you cherry-picked them (there were no significant volcanic eruptions). But you still fail, as a graph of 1999 to 2008 annual temperatures shows that the 30s and 40s arctic temperatures were nowhere near as warm as now.
Vernon said:"For the record, I am done talking to Ian. All he seems to do in any discussion is ad hom, name calling, general rudeness, etc. If he actually could participate in the discussion, I might possibly over look this. He does not and I will not."
Vernon, you are a pathetic clown. Anybody who has been following the links sees that you are a liar. Sod has called you out:
"why don t you provide us with your map that shows arctic cooling?
just use markdown, as described above the comments box to post the link.
you have made 3 false claims about a base period now. will you finally admit to be wrong?"
The absence of a link from Vernon - priceless. Here's mine:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&mon…
Sod also responded to one of Vernon's cherry picking statements with:"i shall hereby name this rather common denialist tactic "the Loehle trick"."
Kind of funny that the published denialist papers are as pathetic as Vernons ineffectual manipulations.
About Vernon's suggestion to set smoothing to 250km, I notice that I am not able to set smoothing to 1 inch. What is GISS trying to hide? I demand an AUDIT!!!!!
Even Hansen (1987) made a specific point about the fact that unlike the 30-40 warming which was stronger at the poles (Arctic and Antarctic) the late century warming started at the lower latitudes and moved towards the Arctic.
And even looking that the pretty pictures, if you bothered to see where the Arctic circle was, you would see the the warming is south of it. If you did not set the program to smearing the warming from the lower latitudes into the Arctic.
hamilton, you are a fool. If you bothered to read Hansen's you might have a clue. Since you are fairly dense, by setting the smoothing to the higher resolution you can see where GISS actually has data and where they do not. For you I will put it simply, there are almost no weather stations in the Arctic. GISS does not know what the SAT of the Arctic is.
Which brings me back to my main point. The current studies show that there is no current Arctic amplification. If your going to argue this point, then quit with the links to advocacy sites and power point shows. Peer reviewed studies only please.
Vernon, Hansen (1987) was TWENTY TWO FREAKING YEARS AGO!!!!
You keep pretending that the 70s through the late 1980s are somehow equivalent to now.
I agree with LB - Ian was being kind when he said you are pathetic.
Vernon, could you please address in detail LB's link at #250, with references and with working where appropriate.
Lee,
Get a grip and read the thread. luminous beauty #245 who presented that paper to show that I was wrong. I read the paper and pointed out that it did not disagree with my position.
Bernard,
as I have pointed out more than a few times. That GISS graphically shows in the Arctic is an artifact of Hansen's 1200km smoothing.
So, how about Obama's bill legislating 15 litres/km minimum requirement for USA vehicle efficiency? I am sure will have a few car owners seeing red...
Vernon said:"Since you are fairly dense, by setting the smoothing to the higher resolution you can see where GISS actually has data and where they do not. For you I will put it simply, there are almost no weather stations in the Arctic. GISS does not know what the SAT of the Arctic is."
Since you are fairly dense, by setting the smoothing to 1 inch you can see where GISS actually has data and where they do not. For you I will put it simply, there are almost no weather stations one inch apart. GISS does not know what the SAT of the world is.
I would be very interested to see how a "1200km smoothing" gives rise to the '[annual [latitudinal] zonal mean anomalies](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py)' plotted over the time period 1880-2009. Why should a "1200km smoothing" show warming progressing with time, and progressing with proximity to the poles?
Comprehensive details, please.
Bernard,
Go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ select include the ocean, set the baseline to 1925-1955 select 250km smoothing, use regular view, run map. See all the gray, that is areas that GISS has no data on. Rerun it with 1200km smoothing and you will see that the areas where GISS has no data on, now has warming. It is an artifact of the 1200km smoothing, not actual data.
You should also run the map with the 250km smoothing for a polar view.
Does that answer your question?
Vernon, after running out of false "baseline" arguments, had to fall back to the "it is the (lack of) stations" line.
as i see it, Vernon, just volunteered to fund accurate arctic temperature measurement in a 250 km (why not 100?) grid.
special thanks to Vernon!
Vern,
Interpolation has improved greatly since 1987.
Just because you can blot out the sun with your thumb, doesn't cause the sun to disappear.
We should give Vern credit for mastering both the Baron von Münchausen trilemma and the Kruger-Dunning Effect, creating a singularly powerful synthesis.
Vern, you should write a book. Title it, "The Perfection of Ignorance".
Yes, Vernon, there are fewer stations in the far north than in the temperate regions of the planet.
Those far-north stations, when one looks at their records, show clearly that stations in the far north have on average had much more warming than temperate stations. This is clear in the 250 km views, where you can clearly see that stations further north tend to have more warming. It is clear in the interpolated 1200km view, which uses the very high spatial correlation of temp anomaly to display the deduced the temp changes around the extant stations.
This is arctic amplification, Vernon.
Vernon:
"Lee,
Get a grip and read the thread. luminous beauty #245 who presented that paper to show that I was wrong. I read the paper and pointed out that it did not disagree with my position."
Oh, good god...
Vernon, LB cited that paper because it demonstrates high spatial correlation of temperature anomalies, especially at high latitudes. LB posted that in response to your tripe about 250/1200 km views. It seems that you are unable to discern the meaning of such simple and basic facts, clearly stated in Hansen (1987).
LB did not post that paper to show what Hansen said about recent temperature trends - because 1987 is not recent, it is 22 FREAKING YEARS OLD. What Hansen said about recent temperatures 22 year ago is about temperatures a quarter century and more ago, and does not apply to recent temperatures now. But the demonstration of high spatial correlation DOES apply 22 years later - it is a general effect.
No.
Follow LB's link at #250 (mine died), click the 'show map' button using the default settings, and re-read my question.
I want to know how you explain the warming over time and latitude.
Sorry for not answering sooner but I was on vacation. Anyway, to address the issues raised. First, the global warming predicts that there will be polar amplification. What Hansen, Serreze, Bitz, and Polyakov all show is that the warming in the current period started at the lower latitudes and moved only to the North Pole. In the warming in the 30-40s the warming started at the poles, both Arctic and Antarctic, and move towards the equator. Current theory says that for real global warming, the warming will be amplified at the poles and move to the equator. That did happen in the earlier warming but not in the current warming. In the current warming we have warming in the Arctic but cooling in the Antarctic.
Now as to the GISS model. First, of you go and read up on how they do the magic, you would know that there is nearly no record of what the SST was for the Arctic. While Hansen has shown that met stations on land so correlation within 1000km, he makes no claim about land met stations and SST. In fact, he used Hadley Centers SST data originally until he switched to another source. However, there is not enough met stations or ships to know what the SST was. This can be seen if you do a polar view and set the smoothing to 250km.
What the GISS tool does clearly show is that warming started in the low latitudes and moved North. It also shows that the warming is on the land and not SST of the Arctic.
Lee, sorry, but polar amplification as expressed in current theory is that warming would express first at the Poles and move towards the equator. What can be clearly seen is that warming started in lower latitudes and moved to the pole.
If I was unclear expressing this, then I am sorry.